117 So. 653 | Ala. | 1928
Action by appellants as surviving partners to recover compensation for services as lawyers rendered to appellee's intestate.
The court did well in charging out the count upon an account stated. Plaintiffs sought to establish an account composed of items of services rendered to deceased covering a period of ten years. There was no evidence going to show an assent or agreement between the parties to the account, express or to be implied, as to the correctness of any balance due. There was no account balanced and rendered with assent to the balance, express or implied. Loventhal v. Morris,
Nor was there evidence to show a running account between the parties. All the items of charge were on one side. Todd v. Todd,
Charge 2, refused to plaintiffs, was the general affirmative charge, with hypothesis, not specifying any amount of plaintiffs' recovery. Its refusal must be held for reversible error, if the evidence showed without dispute or adverse inference that plaintiffs were entitled to recover any amount of damages not merely nominal. There was evidence to sustain the last few items shown by the account introduced by plaintiff — evidence going to show services rendered to appellee's intestate within the time not excluded by the statute of limitation and their substantial value. Code, § 7701. Defendant appellee offered no evidence, nor was plaintiffs' evidence as to these services and their value brought into dispute. By this, however, we will not be understood as holding that the expert opinion testimony of lawyers, by which plaintiffs sought to establish the value of their services, was conclusive as to amount. That at least was a question for jury decision. Lowe v. Reed,
By the return to a writ of certiorari, which return must now be considered as evidencing a true and correct copy of the bill of exceptions (Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Southern Railway,
Referring to the statement of account between plaintiffs' firm and defendant's intestate first offered in evidence by the plaintiffs, the last certified copy of the bill of exceptions contains the following direction:
"The clerk will set out in full the account against J. C. Street in favor of Riddle Riddle, as shown by the ledger of Riddle Riddle on pages 47, 179, 180, and 268, together with all words and figures in the order in which they appear on said pages of said ledger."
A second reference to the account is as follows:
"The clerk will set out the account in the ledger of Riddle Riddle from the beginning of the J. C. Street account up to item dated March 17, 1927, being on page 180."
The next reference is in this language:
"The clerk will here set out the account as shown by the ledger of Riddle Riddle on pages 147, 179, 180, and 268, together with all notations and captions on each and every page."
The last reference to the ledger is as follows:
"The clerk will here set out the account of J. C. Street in the ledger of Riddle Riddle, together with all notations thereon and on pages 47, 179, 180, and 268 thereof."
A book of account, reference to which as the ledger of Riddle Riddle must be justified, however irregularly kept, was in evidence. The entries show an account between Riddle Riddle and J. C. Street, defendant's intestate, covering the period from 1916 to 1925. There was only one such book. We recognize and concur in the strict, but sound, rule heretofore declared by this court in the matter of incorporating in the transcript of the record on appeal evidence identified by reference in the general manner adopted by appellants in this case. Pearce v. Clements,
Other exceptions are stated, though hardly argued, in the brief for appellants. The rulings heretofore stated will serve to greatly reduce the scope of the difference between the parties so that most of these rulings will not recur upon another trial. We find no error in such of them as may recur.
For the error noted, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.